It's not accurate that the military has a terrible track record regarding civilian casualties? Go ahead and offer your proof to the contrary, then.

I don't know if it's true or not, but based on a little thinking about availability bias and publication bias suggest it's plausible.

No one is likely to write about "targets hit exactly as planned, no collateral damage" and even if they do as a puff piece for the military we're unlikely to remember that.

In contrast, every single mistargeting is plausibly worldwide news and our brains are wired to remember such things.

To be clear, I don't have any hard data either way. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's true given the asymmetry of typical cognitive bias in evaluating such a claim. The folk version of this is that you "only ever hear about the CIA's mistakes and not of their successes".

It's not accurate that the military doesn't care. You are foolish.